I almost fell off my seat when I read this one: “Former President Carter angered Israel's government Tuesday by embracing a Hamas politician during a visit to the West Bank, ignoring Israeli and U.S. designation of the Islamic militants as a terror group. Israel accused Carter, the broker of the first Arab-Israeli peace accord, of ‘dignifying’ extremists. But Carter vowed to meet Hamas' supreme leader this week in Syria.” (AP)
What on God’s green Earth is Carter thinking? This lone man (and one of the worst Presidents this country has ever seen) is over in the Middle East literally embracing our enemies and playing unofficial diplomat in direct opposition to American and Israeli policy. By doing so, he is in fact undermining his own country and one of her closest allies: Israel.
If you’re not convinced of the evilness of Hamas and therefore Carter’s idiocy, their charter reads in part, “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm) This then, is an organization 100% dedicated to the destruction of Israel through Jihad- an organization whose leaders have almost deified Hitler in the past and denied the Hollocaust.
Great, Carter, go meet with the intellectual and moral inheritors of Naziism. I’m sure your smile will do the trick.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Coming soon: Fordham's very own conservative magazine!
That's right! Some of you probably thought you'd never read something like this coming to a college in NYC, but on April 21st, the College Republicans will be publishing the Liberty Forum- Fordham's first conservative magazine. I’m really excited for its publication for two reasons: firstly, it will enhance political discourse on this campus and get a conservative message out to our fellow students and secondly, it represents how far along the College Republicans have come this year.
Last year the CR’s turned out MAYBE six people to a meeting, had very few if any events and basically was a defunct club. This year though we average 40 members at meetings, are planning on multiple speakers a semester for next year, go on trips, debate the College Dems (whose leaders are legit awesome people), have fundraisers for the troops and a lot of other stuff. I couldn’t do it without the help of the CR exec board though so thanks guys!
But back to the Liberty Forum. Get ready to read whether Fordham has a liberal bias in the classroom, how free we really are on campus as far as speech is concerned, about the future of Cuba now that Fidel has officially handed over power (a guest column by Humberto Fontova) and about those annoying hate free zone signs next to people’s dorm doors.
We’ll be passing copies out by hand all over campus so be sure to pick one up.
Last year the CR’s turned out MAYBE six people to a meeting, had very few if any events and basically was a defunct club. This year though we average 40 members at meetings, are planning on multiple speakers a semester for next year, go on trips, debate the College Dems (whose leaders are legit awesome people), have fundraisers for the troops and a lot of other stuff. I couldn’t do it without the help of the CR exec board though so thanks guys!
But back to the Liberty Forum. Get ready to read whether Fordham has a liberal bias in the classroom, how free we really are on campus as far as speech is concerned, about the future of Cuba now that Fidel has officially handed over power (a guest column by Humberto Fontova) and about those annoying hate free zone signs next to people’s dorm doors.
We’ll be passing copies out by hand all over campus so be sure to pick one up.
Fidel Castro's daughter coming to Fordham!!!
The American Age Lecture Series is hosting Alina Fernandez Revuelta, the daughter of Fidel Castro. Before you get all up in arms as I did at first, she is actually a huge critic of her father’s regime. She escaped Cuba by pretending to be a Spanish tourist. Once she reached Spain, she moved to Miami where she now hosts a radio show where she denounces her mass murdering father and his Communist thugs.
While the CR’s aren’t hosting this event, it is nonetheless a great one to have on this campus, especially considering we hosted Humberto Fontova last semester. Last semester we exposed Che Guevara and now Fidel Castro has it coming to him. You’ve got to love a college that actually brings people who stand up for freedom and American values instead of the terrorists (I mean presidents) of Iran and Libya.
Ms. Revuelta will be speaking on Thursday, April 24 at 7:00 PM in Keating 1st auditorium. I hope a lot of people will come to this event. Despite what we know about Castro, it seems as if many liberals in this country still don’t view him as the murdering dictator he is.
Here is more information on Revuelta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Fern%C3%A1ndez
As a side note, watch for a featured article on the future of Cuba by Humberto Fontova in the first issue of the Liberty Forum, which will be coming out on April 21st.
While the CR’s aren’t hosting this event, it is nonetheless a great one to have on this campus, especially considering we hosted Humberto Fontova last semester. Last semester we exposed Che Guevara and now Fidel Castro has it coming to him. You’ve got to love a college that actually brings people who stand up for freedom and American values instead of the terrorists (I mean presidents) of Iran and Libya.
Ms. Revuelta will be speaking on Thursday, April 24 at 7:00 PM in Keating 1st auditorium. I hope a lot of people will come to this event. Despite what we know about Castro, it seems as if many liberals in this country still don’t view him as the murdering dictator he is.
Here is more information on Revuelta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Fern%C3%A1ndez
As a side note, watch for a featured article on the future of Cuba by Humberto Fontova in the first issue of the Liberty Forum, which will be coming out on April 21st.
Indoctrinate-U a must see
Indoctrinate-U is a documentary on the sad state of modern American academia. It thoroughly documents how liberals have taken over our universities and basically eliminated any conservative voice. While liberals always claim to stick up for free speech, Indoctrinate-U documents a number of cases where conservative students and professors were harassed, sued and forced to undergo disciplinary hearings just for being Republican or conservative.
In one scene, a conservative professor was told how she would not have been hired if the hiring committee knew she was a Republican!
Indoctrinate-U really does a great job at exposing the intellectual hypocrisy of liberals in academia and I hope to show it on Fordham's campus either this semester or next. I've always maintained that Fordham is much better off than Columbia or NYU, but we still have our fair share of liberal biases.
Visit http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/ for more information on the film.
In one scene, a conservative professor was told how she would not have been hired if the hiring committee knew she was a Republican!
Indoctrinate-U really does a great job at exposing the intellectual hypocrisy of liberals in academia and I hope to show it on Fordham's campus either this semester or next. I've always maintained that Fordham is much better off than Columbia or NYU, but we still have our fair share of liberal biases.
Visit http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/ for more information on the film.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Jonah Goldberg- even better than expected
Last night (April 9, 2008) the Fordham Colleege Republicans hosted Jonah Goldberg- author of Liberal Fascism and notable conservative commentator. He addressed about 130 students and faculty on his contention that fascism- often labeled a right-wing ideology- is in fact left-wing and a liberal ideology. Even the liberals in the audience loved what he had to say and a number of them even said they were convinced by Jonah's argument. I wasn't very aware of Jonah before this speaking engagement but have become a big fan.
He was not only funny, but had a clear academic and intellectual side to him. I often gripe about conservative commentators' idiocy (read: Ann Coulter) but Jonah is the exact opposite. While he caters to red-meat conservatives, he also possesses the ability to convert the un-saved to conservatism- an ability very much lacking in too many commentators.
Be sure to pick up a copy of his NY Times best-seller, Liberal Fascism.
He was not only funny, but had a clear academic and intellectual side to him. I often gripe about conservative commentators' idiocy (read: Ann Coulter) but Jonah is the exact opposite. While he caters to red-meat conservatives, he also possesses the ability to convert the un-saved to conservatism- an ability very much lacking in too many commentators.
Be sure to pick up a copy of his NY Times best-seller, Liberal Fascism.
On Eliot Spitzer
Eliot Spitzer’s recent demise surprised very few people. Such is the sad state of American politics. We can easily add him to a growing list of American politicians who have been felled or near felled whence caught in sexual scandal: Larry Craig, David Vitter, Jim McGreevy and of course, the great stain maker himself: Bill Clinton.
I will not attempt to philosophize about what makes so many politicians cheat on their wives because at the root of it I believe they are people just like ourselves (except in Bill Clinton’s case. Who wouldn’t cheat on Hillary?) They are just as apt to sin and fall short of our moral models as you or I are. The only difference is since they are in prominent political offices, their scandals make the front page of the New York Times. If the guy down the street cheated on his wife, no one would know about it unless his wife took some unfortunate revenge. Fortunately for most male politicians, they have incredibly loyal wives.
But what causes some cheating politicians to fall when the veil is lifted and others to seemingly become more popular? Certainly legality has much to do with it. Spitzer’s hiring of prostitutes and transporting of women across state lines for sexual purposes was a clear violation of the law and warranted his punishment (being forced from office) if not more. Likewise, McGreevy’s shady financial dealings with his homosexual fling (remember, he was married with multiple children) was a clear ethical and legal violation. It appears then that what people really hate is politicians breaking the law.
But what about Bill Clinton? While his lying to Congress was clearly illegal and he was impeached for doing so, there was nothing inherently illegal about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and few apart from the religious right really cared about the actual trysts. What people cared about was his lying to Congress and more importantly the American people about his actions. But why did he survive the Congressional onslaught and judgment of the American people? Because no one expected much better of him.
Bill Clinton was a man known to have had affairs before and never once preached about morality or sexual purity. Even the most liberal of us would have to laugh if Clinton had suddenly started preaching about monogamy or faith to one’s spouse. So, when push came to shove, the American people were more than willing to forgive Bill Clinton for his affair(s) since this is what they expected of him.
Bill Clinton’s scandals though pale in comparison to Eliot Spitzer’s for one main reason: Spitzer is a hypocrite, Clinton is not. Before he was Governor of New York, Spitzer was the Attorney General and at least in part made his career out of prosecuting prostitution rings and such. He also campaigned on a platform of impeccable ethics and so when he was caught with his pants down, people simply weren’t willing to look the other way.
It would seem then that the American people are willing to forgive a lot. They are willing to forgive egregious moral slips and even minor illegalities (Clinton’s lying to Congress). What the American people are not willing to forgive though, and rightfully so, is hypocrisy. Politicians be-ware: you can lie, cheat and steal, but don’t tell the American people one thing and do the other.
This is of course an oxymoron, however. How could a person be a politician if they weren’t the least bit hypocritical? One must devote themselves to public service but who knows a governor or president without an ego? At least we can rest assured that this isn’t an American problem only. Just take a look at Nicolas Sarkozy- the president of France. Just recently he dumped his wife and married an Italian super-model.
Ah, Eliot Spitzer- the first French Governor of New York.
I will not attempt to philosophize about what makes so many politicians cheat on their wives because at the root of it I believe they are people just like ourselves (except in Bill Clinton’s case. Who wouldn’t cheat on Hillary?) They are just as apt to sin and fall short of our moral models as you or I are. The only difference is since they are in prominent political offices, their scandals make the front page of the New York Times. If the guy down the street cheated on his wife, no one would know about it unless his wife took some unfortunate revenge. Fortunately for most male politicians, they have incredibly loyal wives.
But what causes some cheating politicians to fall when the veil is lifted and others to seemingly become more popular? Certainly legality has much to do with it. Spitzer’s hiring of prostitutes and transporting of women across state lines for sexual purposes was a clear violation of the law and warranted his punishment (being forced from office) if not more. Likewise, McGreevy’s shady financial dealings with his homosexual fling (remember, he was married with multiple children) was a clear ethical and legal violation. It appears then that what people really hate is politicians breaking the law.
But what about Bill Clinton? While his lying to Congress was clearly illegal and he was impeached for doing so, there was nothing inherently illegal about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and few apart from the religious right really cared about the actual trysts. What people cared about was his lying to Congress and more importantly the American people about his actions. But why did he survive the Congressional onslaught and judgment of the American people? Because no one expected much better of him.
Bill Clinton was a man known to have had affairs before and never once preached about morality or sexual purity. Even the most liberal of us would have to laugh if Clinton had suddenly started preaching about monogamy or faith to one’s spouse. So, when push came to shove, the American people were more than willing to forgive Bill Clinton for his affair(s) since this is what they expected of him.
Bill Clinton’s scandals though pale in comparison to Eliot Spitzer’s for one main reason: Spitzer is a hypocrite, Clinton is not. Before he was Governor of New York, Spitzer was the Attorney General and at least in part made his career out of prosecuting prostitution rings and such. He also campaigned on a platform of impeccable ethics and so when he was caught with his pants down, people simply weren’t willing to look the other way.
It would seem then that the American people are willing to forgive a lot. They are willing to forgive egregious moral slips and even minor illegalities (Clinton’s lying to Congress). What the American people are not willing to forgive though, and rightfully so, is hypocrisy. Politicians be-ware: you can lie, cheat and steal, but don’t tell the American people one thing and do the other.
This is of course an oxymoron, however. How could a person be a politician if they weren’t the least bit hypocritical? One must devote themselves to public service but who knows a governor or president without an ego? At least we can rest assured that this isn’t an American problem only. Just take a look at Nicolas Sarkozy- the president of France. Just recently he dumped his wife and married an Italian super-model.
Ah, Eliot Spitzer- the first French Governor of New York.
Budget deficit is a major problem
Republicans and conservatives have long lamented the drunken spending of Presidents such as FDR and Lyndon B. Johnson who ushered in vast new spending programs with the New Deal and the Great Society. Our larger society has generally come to associate Democrats and liberals with increased spending and higher taxes and with good reason. But while these men can certainly be criticized for their spending, we must be fair. George Bush is far worse than either.
The White House has predicted that the national debt will reach 9.6 trillion dollars by the end of Bush’s second term. In 2007 alone, the USA spent 250 billion dollars paying off interest on that debt. To put such a number in to perspective, know that we spent approximately 500 billion dollars on the Department of Defense (DoD) in 2007. Essentially then, we spent half of our DoD budget paying debt.
The White House also projects that the budget deficit will reach 400 billion dollars or more in the coming year. That means we could potentially return to the record 2004 deficit of $413 billion.
If these numbers say anything, they say that government is completely and utterly out of control. Congress spends freely and Bush does little to nothing about it. While Bush failed to veto a single Congressional spending bill while the Republicans were in power, he now vetoes spending bills as if only now Congress is out of control. The fact is that the former Republican Congress, the current Democratic one and President Bush himself spend tax payer dollars like they grow on trees.
Now Congress and Bush seem ready to pass a $150 billion tax rebate bill in order to spur economic growth when no economists of note say such a bill will truly work. Rather, Congress and Bush will spend $150 billion to create the appearance that they are trying to help the economy. While it is honorable to want to spur economic growth, Bush and Congress should have the courage of their convictions and not spend $150 billion recklessly when they largely know it will have no impact on the economy.
What makes these deficits and reckless spending bills so egregious though is not that our national leaders don’t listen to economists or understand what they’re saying but that they are knowingly passing on incredible amounts of debt to our generation- debt that no other generation in the past has had to deal with. This is debt that we are legally bound to pay back even though we didn’t have (much of) a say in spending it.
In 2007, almost ½ of American citizens reported salaries less than $30,000 and 1/3 reported salaries of less than $50,000. (Interestingly, these numbers are worse than the year 2000, when Congress actually practiced what it preached.) Although Americans are reporting less income than in the past, our national leaders continue to spend as if our incomes are increasing. Where are we supposed to get the money to pay back China and the other foreign countries that we have become indebted to?
The fact is that America is in very sad financial shape. We spend as if we have an endless stream of revenue and we are growing at less than half the rate of competitors such as China. If we continue on this dangerous road we will surely come to a point where we will no longer be recognized as the greatest nation on Earth.
This is why then it is so important that we all participate in this presidential election. On the Democratic side, we have Senators Clinton and Obama proposing incredible increases in spending (such as universal healthcare, read: socialist healthcare) and on the other side of the aisle we have people like Mitt Romney proposing nearly as ridiculous amounts of spending ($54.2 billion at last check). The one viable candidate in this race who understands the need to cut spending is John McCain.
While Bush may not be the spending hawk I’d like, God forbid a second Clinton presidency. Billary would make GW look like a penny pincher.
The White House has predicted that the national debt will reach 9.6 trillion dollars by the end of Bush’s second term. In 2007 alone, the USA spent 250 billion dollars paying off interest on that debt. To put such a number in to perspective, know that we spent approximately 500 billion dollars on the Department of Defense (DoD) in 2007. Essentially then, we spent half of our DoD budget paying debt.
The White House also projects that the budget deficit will reach 400 billion dollars or more in the coming year. That means we could potentially return to the record 2004 deficit of $413 billion.
If these numbers say anything, they say that government is completely and utterly out of control. Congress spends freely and Bush does little to nothing about it. While Bush failed to veto a single Congressional spending bill while the Republicans were in power, he now vetoes spending bills as if only now Congress is out of control. The fact is that the former Republican Congress, the current Democratic one and President Bush himself spend tax payer dollars like they grow on trees.
Now Congress and Bush seem ready to pass a $150 billion tax rebate bill in order to spur economic growth when no economists of note say such a bill will truly work. Rather, Congress and Bush will spend $150 billion to create the appearance that they are trying to help the economy. While it is honorable to want to spur economic growth, Bush and Congress should have the courage of their convictions and not spend $150 billion recklessly when they largely know it will have no impact on the economy.
What makes these deficits and reckless spending bills so egregious though is not that our national leaders don’t listen to economists or understand what they’re saying but that they are knowingly passing on incredible amounts of debt to our generation- debt that no other generation in the past has had to deal with. This is debt that we are legally bound to pay back even though we didn’t have (much of) a say in spending it.
In 2007, almost ½ of American citizens reported salaries less than $30,000 and 1/3 reported salaries of less than $50,000. (Interestingly, these numbers are worse than the year 2000, when Congress actually practiced what it preached.) Although Americans are reporting less income than in the past, our national leaders continue to spend as if our incomes are increasing. Where are we supposed to get the money to pay back China and the other foreign countries that we have become indebted to?
The fact is that America is in very sad financial shape. We spend as if we have an endless stream of revenue and we are growing at less than half the rate of competitors such as China. If we continue on this dangerous road we will surely come to a point where we will no longer be recognized as the greatest nation on Earth.
This is why then it is so important that we all participate in this presidential election. On the Democratic side, we have Senators Clinton and Obama proposing incredible increases in spending (such as universal healthcare, read: socialist healthcare) and on the other side of the aisle we have people like Mitt Romney proposing nearly as ridiculous amounts of spending ($54.2 billion at last check). The one viable candidate in this race who understands the need to cut spending is John McCain.
While Bush may not be the spending hawk I’d like, God forbid a second Clinton presidency. Billary would make GW look like a penny pincher.
Bush Betrays Basic Conservative Principles
Alan Greenspan, recently retired chairman of the Federal Reserve and life-long Republican, recently lambasted President Bush and the former Republican Congress this past weekend. In his new memoir, Greenspan accuses Bush and company of betraying “principle for power”. He writes, “The Republicans in Congress lost their way. They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”
Unfortunately, Greenspan’s criticism is both accurate and true. Over the past six years, the former Republican Congress and President Bush have betrayed basic conservative principles.
Greenspan specifically criticizes “runaway deficit spending” and in particular the fact that the White House and Congress allowed a Clinton-era produced budget surplus to turn in to a Bush-era produced deficit.
One should note my wording. While President Clinton held office when the federal budget moved from red to black (the Clinton-era), it is not fair to say this was his achievement alone. Bush-opponents love to forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress keeping him in line. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and later Denny Hastert wielded a legitimately conservative Congress who practiced what they preached: fiscal discipline.
It appears that the partisan divide in Washington at the time actually produced good policy (at least from Congress). The election of Bush seemed to usher in a new Congress-White House relationship, however. While this new partnership was given the opportunity to execute conservative principles and fix a number of problems once and for all, it failed miserably.
According to Greenspan, Bush “…didn’t want to challenge former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.” Apparently, Bush thought that he could control Hastert better by “not antagonizing him”. Believe it or not, Mr. President, even Republicans need to be antagonized sometimes.
It seems that since Bush did not want to antagonize the Speaker, nor likely, be seen as fighting with other Republicans, that conservative principle fell by the way side, and Republicans, drunk with power, started acting like Democrats.
Unfortunately this behavior extended beyond fiscal discipline (or lack thereof). The collective congressional Republican Party started acting like Clinton and Monica (only with male pages and prostitution rings of course) and government has grown larger and faster than even FDR could have dreamed of.
Perhaps being out of power is the best thing for the Republican Party right now. It’s almost like when your parents sent you to your room when you were younger. You thought about your actions and came out a better person (or at least better behaved). The only difference is our American parents have sent us to our room for at least two years.
Unfortunately, Greenspan’s criticism is both accurate and true. Over the past six years, the former Republican Congress and President Bush have betrayed basic conservative principles.
Greenspan specifically criticizes “runaway deficit spending” and in particular the fact that the White House and Congress allowed a Clinton-era produced budget surplus to turn in to a Bush-era produced deficit.
One should note my wording. While President Clinton held office when the federal budget moved from red to black (the Clinton-era), it is not fair to say this was his achievement alone. Bush-opponents love to forget that Clinton had a Republican Congress keeping him in line. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and later Denny Hastert wielded a legitimately conservative Congress who practiced what they preached: fiscal discipline.
It appears that the partisan divide in Washington at the time actually produced good policy (at least from Congress). The election of Bush seemed to usher in a new Congress-White House relationship, however. While this new partnership was given the opportunity to execute conservative principles and fix a number of problems once and for all, it failed miserably.
According to Greenspan, Bush “…didn’t want to challenge former House Speaker Dennis Hastert.” Apparently, Bush thought that he could control Hastert better by “not antagonizing him”. Believe it or not, Mr. President, even Republicans need to be antagonized sometimes.
It seems that since Bush did not want to antagonize the Speaker, nor likely, be seen as fighting with other Republicans, that conservative principle fell by the way side, and Republicans, drunk with power, started acting like Democrats.
Unfortunately this behavior extended beyond fiscal discipline (or lack thereof). The collective congressional Republican Party started acting like Clinton and Monica (only with male pages and prostitution rings of course) and government has grown larger and faster than even FDR could have dreamed of.
Perhaps being out of power is the best thing for the Republican Party right now. It’s almost like when your parents sent you to your room when you were younger. You thought about your actions and came out a better person (or at least better behaved). The only difference is our American parents have sent us to our room for at least two years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)